Lámar v. Micou

Supreme Court

Lámar v. Micou

104 U.S. 465, 26 L. Ed. 774, 14 Otto 465, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2027

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 19, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 104 U.S. 465 (Lámar v. Micou) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lámar v. Micou, 104 U.S. 465, 26 L. Ed. 774, 14 Otto 465, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2027 (1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a decree against him for less than $5,000. There is no claim of set-off or counter-claim, except to reduce the amount of the recovery. In no event can he get any money decree in his favor. All he seeks to do is to defeat the claim of the appellee. Consequently the amount in controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, is fixed by the decree. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207. In effect he insists that, under the rule of liability established against him in. the court below, the decree should have been for more than $5,000, and that for this reason he is entitled to an appeal, so that he may.show he is not liable at all. This, we think it clear, is -not the law.

' The case is not changed by the fact that if, under an appeal which is pending in another suit, it shall be found the appellant was credited in this suit with an amount which properly belonged to- that, the decree in that suit will be reduced, while the one in this cannot be correspondingly increased. The appellee is satisfied with this decree, and has not appealed. . The appellant cannot complain if it turns out in the end that, but *466 for a mistake which was made in his favor, the appellee might have recovered a larger amount.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a decree against him for less than $5,000. There is no claim of set-off or counter-claim, except to reduce the amount of the recovery. In no event can he get any money decree in his favor. All he seeks to do is to defeat the claim of the appellee. Consequently the amount in controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, is fixed by the decree. Thompson v. Butler, 95 U. S. 694; Sampson v. Welsh, 24 How. 207. In effect he insists that, under the rule of liability established against him in. the court below, the decree should have been for more than $5,000, and that for this reason he is entitled to an appeal, so that he may.show he is not liable at all. This, we think it clear, is -not the law.

' The case is not changed by the fact that if, under an appeal which is pending in another suit, it shall be found the appellant was credited in this suit with an amount which properly belonged to- that, the decree in that suit will be reduced, while the one in this cannot be correspondingly increased. The appellee is satisfied with this decree, and has not appealed. . The appellant cannot complain if it turns out in the end that, but *466 for a mistake which was made in his favor, the appellee might have recovered a larger amount.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 U.S. 465, 26 L. Ed. 774, 14 Otto 465, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamar-v-micou-scotus-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack